Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Le-Huy (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Information about the subject or incident might be useful in other articles, but consensus is to not have a biographical article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat Le-Huy

Cat Le-Huy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

An article about someone who was once detained for a week in Dubai and, er, released without charge. The closest to a claim to fame is being IT manager for the firm that produces Big Brother. This is a tabloid story which might have gone somewhere but didn't because he was releasd. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Might have been news for 10 days, but it isn't remotely encyclopedic.--Doc^g 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even marginally remotely encyclopedic. Cary Bass ^demandez 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This is like a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Deport. Not encyclopedic, basically soapboxing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per BLP1E - possibly merge salvageable content into the very thin Law enforcement in the United Arab Emirates? 144.137.197.167 (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete is there a BLP.10E because this was entirely a non-event TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I had never heard of this guy before he was detained in Dubai and during the campaign to release him there was a huge amount of media, both online and traditional - including national television coverage here in Australia. Definitely notable and an important issue to be documented, and if you check Google news, is still generating articles now, as well as over 10,000 Google hits for his name. Wildilocks (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Leave AFD to run, merge or rename to incident - this is on the surface a classic case of WP:BLP1E, but this could be big - he's hitting the media with this as hard as he can. TV in Australia, the Times travel column today (and I bet Dubai was pleased with that). Dubai basically finally mistreated the wrong person, and it's still a live story. Letting the AFD run to its full length should be enough time to see if this is actually article-worthy - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, I should note: I don't know Cat himself at all, but I do know a lot of his friends and I'm pretty familiar with the entire incident over the past couple of months. I wouldn't have considered it worth noting in Wikipedia up till now, but that Times story is the sort of thing that leads to the sort of story that stays in the papers for a few weeks at least - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think delete for now per WP:BLP1E - if this article is deleted and the issue turns out noteworthy after all, the sources will still be entirely available to write a proper article then - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Cat wasn't notable, what happened to Cat is notable. Perhaps he's only a cipher for this larger story, but it represents a current issue for any travellers in the region and an indication of the meaning of "law enforcement" in Dubai Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah - Cat isn't notable enough himself, what happened to him may well be Wikipedia-worthy. Story is still developing. There probably isn't a better title for it at the moment than his name, though - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• In principle we don't use bios as "cipher for this larger story". That's a bad avenue (see WP:COAT etc). And I'm very uncomfortable with the claim what happened to Cat is notable - it sounds like an argument to allow this because the issue we want to soapbox about is just. If the phenomena is currently notable, (and there is some good independent analysis available in the sources) go write an article on that, and perhaps use this as an example. But we should delete this meantime.--Doc^g 12:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't a coatrack. If it was, what would it be about? The Big Brother link is a curiosity, but that really is an irrelevance and no-one is trying to sneak it in. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If this article is deleted and the issue turns out noteworthy after all, the sources will still be entirely available to write a proper article then - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete. subject is not notable for his detention but for being tv exec with successful show (i.e. would not get coverage if he was a.n.other traveller). event itself is only passing passed news. an encyclopedia article would be about dubai's enforcement of anti-drug legislation, not how it arrested one person. therefore article should be deleted. a page about the exec himself might be possible, but does anyone even want to write that? didnt exist until he was locked up for a while. Mcmullen writes (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the coverage thing was not because he was in telly, but because of grassroots Internet activity. I know, I watched it in progress and made helpful suggestions ;-) (Not relevant to the deletability of this article) - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Clear Delete per the BLP1E issues noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Detention alone is not a noteworthy story. The media attention this story has attained is uninteresting and related more to the person involved having media contacts. Despite being a popular story for that specific reason, it is not noteworthy. The entire story is not encyclopedic.Freakchild (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.